••I-hc- oiiMfrm State. bv its esMUHW amf bv th.- tft>aJa which /r fl»e«». is nceeaMrily * .uii/farv State and a utility State is bound no less obligatorily to become a conquering State; if It does not devote Itself to conquest, it will itself be coaquert'd, tor the simple reason that everywhere force exists it must be demonstrated. Hence, the modern Stmte must neeeoMri/y be hig and strong; that Is the necCMV) condition of its saiety " Mikhail Hakuuln, 1873.

Vhe portentous words oJ Bakuum have been tw well home out 4 century attei he wtote them Where force ousts it must he demonstrated It has been almost tout decides since WWII ended and that demonstration of torce continues unabated All over the world, horn Centra) America to the southern Atlantic to the Middle East, we be At witness to mass imudei bombings arson and tenor committed bv the state and rationalized in the name o! the state thtough eloquent appeals to some grand and noble Higher Authority, known often by such names as Cod or Man. 01 Dogma ot King, or Counts We sec the supcipowen stockpile weapons, again and again, to the point ot btmgmg u> perilously closer to annihilating ourselves dosens oi tunes ovei As individuals and as persons federated with otheis having a common purpose, we have petitioned the governments o| the eatth countless times only to see instead an even gieatci and mote massive buildup ol the most deadly anus humani-tv has evei known Vhc I hilled Nations sal in Special Session mst live \ojiv ago and the leadeis ot the world's ^ governments talked among themselves about disarmament, and still nothing has been done Fhere is a ^ety real and immediate threat to the planet We must theteloie absolutely and constantly put pressure on the woild's governments to end miluancatton and stop the aims buildup But thai is merely a short-term goal Recognizing that the state w ill uot disaitu we propose to disarm the state, neutralize it, and effectively and immediately abolish it. How this will be done a question that only individual and collective conscience and practice can answer We know that the state's lust and most basic function is to protect itsell This is the character of the siatc it is a law a> ti\ and immutable as any ot the laws ot science pertaining to natute Institutions can be reformed ot altcicd. the bureaucracy can be reorganised. the cabinet can be reshuffled, and government* can state coup d'etats against othei governments, but the form and structure ot daily life remains the same continuously alienating presence Recognising that as long as external government still exists, we will always be at least pattiallv enslaved sometimes in subtlet wavs. such as we know m the industrialised countries; too often in overt \> a\ s such as the people ot Fl Salvador 01 Lebanon or Vietnam have known We must wotk now to end the madness it tot no othet reason that to save lives, and we must work always, it tor no other reason that to change lile. Hut to change lite we must begin to define hu ourselves the conditions ot life Fot too long we have allowed the corpora turns, and the churches, and the central committees to define our verv existence. Bv tedciatiug among ourselves, ignoring government wheie practical and fighting it whete necessary; bv eliminating hom our ow n personal lives as many vestiges ot authoiitian thinking and acting as possible; by collectively restructuring relationships among ourselves and bv fusing the goal with the process in order to create t new ethic and reality, we seek to combat the state and to abolish the state We .seek liberty, justice, equality, and we also seek tteedoni and happiness and pleasure We seek to savot the present, and we seek to cteate the future

rower operate* aaiy destructively, 6*at aiw«jn» on forting every maulfratatfon of life into the str*i{l*cket ot it> Im. If intellectu*l form of expression is demd dotfma. its physical form brute force, Ami this uttJu<r/i(*ro^ of it, object!*** M(l it, slain,. on it» ,uytH>rters aMo ami renders them stutdd <uid brntnl. mn wl,tra thcy wrr* originally endowed with the beat of tmients. One who if constantly t-t firing to force everything into m mechanical order at fast brannr, m Of chine himself and loses mil human feeling " Hudolf K inker. '

i the straitjacket And this Id and brutal, 1rlng to force feeling."

s&rily h a conquering ir the simple i odern State ifetr.m

| the earth humani-world's very real torld's ■ ognizing ktely Ice can of the n be I can con-iys be at » often in to end that to

HERE WE GO AGAIN! Another stormy issue of vice and dissent. And for those of you who thought we'd never return (it HAS been a while since our last appearance), and who would like to hurl a "where WERE you?!" into our faces, let me explain. No, let me make a good excuse or two. My first excuse is that a trip to Europe halted progress on this issue just before it was going to press. Events since then led us to rethink and rewrite some of the content - a further delay. The biggest of these events, and my biggest excuse, is the format ion of:

THE MACKAY SOCIETY. While in Germany, I finalized arrangements to cooperate with the Mackay-Gese11schaft in the publication and distribution of a series of English translations of important works of German individualist anarchism. With the aid of the interpretational skill of Hubert Kennedy, and the generous hospitality of Frau Zube, agreements were reached with Kurt Zube, (the Secretary) and, as you will see by the enclosed catalogue, an English-language MACKAY SOCIETY now exists and will be offering the best individualist anarchist literature available. Both John Henry Mackay's THE FREEDOMSEEKER, and K.H.Z. Solneman's MANIFESTO OF PEACE AND FREEDOM, continue, update, and expand the genuine libertarian analyses pioneered by Stirner, Proudhon, Tucker, and Oppenheimer. The Mackay Society is now also the "official" publisher of THE STORM!, whose subscribers are hereby invited to transfer the balance of their subscriptions toward membership in the Mackay Society (as described in the catalog ). In reality very little has been altered --but ouch will be added.'

M(ALICE) IN DEUTSCHLAND. My visit to the Mackay-Gesellschaft in Freiburg was only one of many memorable stops in Europe. In addition to Amsterdam, Vienna, Paris and other cities, there was Munich, with my friends Peter S. and Peter H. On one of several long walks in that beautiful city, I remarked how clean it was (especially compared to my own New York). When we later passed a couple of policemen breaking-up a peaceful crowd of teenage boys, Peter S. said to me with quiet cynicism: "Now you know how they keep Munich so clean." _ -

He also visited the site of the first Nazi concentration camp, in Dachau, now reconstructed and preserved as a museum for tourists. Unlike most tourist spots, a somber atmosphere pervaded the air. Everything appeared to be in shades of black and white: all grey. Here were stone and metal memorial sculptures - and the barbed wire, the barracks, and the incinerators.

In the barracks, 1 read exerpts from the rules and regulations which governed the daily life of the prisoners. Several of these mandated severe punishments for minor trangressions of tidiness, such as not making one's "bed" properly, or not cleaning one's coffee cup. I thought then of Munich, so neat and clean - and how it is kept that way. I thought, too, of the maxim: Cleanliness is next to godliness. I laughed to myself... and then I shuddered.

While in Dachau, my friends told me that the German Federal Republic has been considering supplying their police with arms that fire gas pellets. And even if the federal government votes against such a measure, the more conservative government of Bavaria (the state Munich is capital of) intends to adopt the new weapons. These gas-guns had been demonstrated on a testing ground very near to the Dachau concentration camp! Ironically, one of several memorials in the camp reads in four languages: NEVER AGAIN. (Indeed.')

I thought about the message of this relief as I visited the three spartan-like chapels on the camp grounds - Jewish, catholic, and protestant. I thought of all the slaughter perpetrated by Christians on Jews for "murdering Christ". How ironic (once again); with Hitler and the Nazis "the murder of Christ" was committed on an unprecedented scale. I thought too of the 200,000 or more homosexuals who were also exterminated by the Nazis as inferior beings and enemies of society (a judgement the National Socialists found ready-made in the scriptures of Judaism and Christianity -more irony). There has been no effort so far, except by homosexuals themselves, to memorialize these victims of State terrorism.

And I thought of other holocausts, committed by the other side against innocent lives (unless children are guilty of the sins of their parents) in Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki... and of the holocaust that awaits us if we forget the horror of those times. DEN TOTEN ZUR EHR - DEN LEBENDEN ZUR MAHNUNG. So reads a statue of a camp inmate in Dachau: A MEMORIAL TO THE DEAD - A WARNING TO THE LIVING.

At about the same time that I was in Munich, not too far away (but unknown to me at the time) another friend, Kent Larrabee, was taking part in a walk for disarmament that was transversing western Europe on its way to the USSR (as it turned out, only Kent made it, on his own, to Russia and Moscow). Below is an exerpt from his newsletter, PARADOX III, in which he describes a non-violent demonstration at a U.S. military base in Fulda, Germany, that houses some 5,000 GIs.

In the early morning, shortly after dawn, we witnessed hundreds of G.I.'s pouring out of the barracks for their morning exercise of running in unison. They started shouting something to the rhythm of their running. At first, we couldn't believe it, but then it was clear. In angry terms, they were shouting "DROP THE BOMB! DROP THE BOMB! DROP THE BOMB!" This went on for some time, not only for our benefit, but also within thp hearing of German families in the nearby residential areas. More shudders....A11 that day....we had the opportunity to talk with many G.I.'s.... I jotted down a few of their comments...."! don't want to talk with you, but I want to telI

ANARCHY OR OBLIVION. Some may find it irreverent, or characteristic, of THE STORM! to include in the same issue both an anti-war message and a review of Ragnar Redbeard's bellicose classic, MIGHT IS RIGHT. They're right on both counts.

Redbeard's book is a powerful attack on the notion that having "right" on your side will somehow make you victorious over "the sl'r.gs and arrows of outrageous fortune". The only right, or guarantee of success, according to Redbeard, is superior might.

But one can neither equate right with success nor wrong with failure, as Redbeard does. For nothing is right or wrong (to again quote the playwright) "but thinking makes it so". But this does not mean that "right and wrong" are meaningless labels, but they are usually only valid for the person making such judgements. Right and wrong in the social world are inter-personal agreements. They are subjective value judgements on which enough agreement exists to impose them on society as a whole. Those rights which have the most agreement behind them are more likely to approach the ideal of equal freedoa for all individuals, and least likely to be claims of special privileges by some over others. While I find the notion of inherent rights to be unprovable, I don't find the idea to be repugnant (as Kerry Thornley, in this issue, asserts). Thus might is certainly not inherently right... but - simply - might!

The worship of might, strength, or power, is often considered one of the characteristics of the autliori tarian mind. If this is so, then MIGHT IS RIGHT is one of the most authoritarian books ever written. The Nazis would have loved it, and Conan the Barbarian would have eaten it up. Today, "might is right" is certainly not an anti-statist sentiment. It is rather a motto for those who favor ever-increasing nuclear arsenals, and attempting to "win" a war using these hellish devices.

There is something to the notion, however, that, in order to overcome coercive might, an even greater might must be brought to bear. But such a successful confrontation with the State would have to rely on might or power of a different nature, such as that of non-violent direct action. Of course, other actions against the >r.ate, short of direct confrontation, can aid efforts to discredit authority and encourage others to take control over their own lives and defy the powers-that-be in their own ways. What allows the invasive to be successful - or "right", again not the same thing -if ,i f ore bea ranee 0f the non-in vasi ve. In tTiTi sense, "might is right only because we allow it to be. Unfortunately, in this world of computer-run Conans flexing their nuclear arms like muscle-bound exhibitionists - which most people seem to accept, if not have

be DEAD right^ ^ ~ mi8ht ** "°W "0t °"ly "right": il is likelyt0

The only real alternative to invasive might, which is leading us to oblivion, is anarchy.

(And here we thank the group, ANARCHY OR OBLIVION, for the text on the hack cover. This group is a coalition of anarchists within the New York tri-state area. Unlike sone sectors of the disarmament and peace movement, it feels that "only through broad-based, decentralized and non-hierarchical movement that directly confronts the status quo, can we hope to effect fundamental social and political change". The group can be reached at: ANARCHY OR OBLIVION c/o L.B.C. ; G. P.O. Box 842 , NY, NY 10116. And for the cover photo of a civil disobedience arrest at the June 12 nuclear disarmament rally, we thank Rick ,Chris, and Carl (as Ronnie Raygun) who appear therein.

UNION OF EGOISTS. Against the threat of mutual annihilation, it is the interests of most individuals in the US, the USSR, and all countries in between, to unite to achieve disarmament - out of sheer self preservation if nothing else. 1 can understand that the older one is the less one has to lose in the event of apocalypse. This may be one reason why governments, run by an older generation that took years to rise (by any means necessary) to the top, seem bent on suicide (indeed, "omnicide"). Young people, meanwhile, are more likely to oppose war and mass slaughter. Of course, there are lots of older folks opposed to war and mass destruction; likewise there are younger folks who, imprisoned in State-contro1 led schools, learn and parrot all the ideological "justifications" for this mad state of affairs.. (Note that to justify is to find or put "in the right". Hramm.) This situation will only be changed when enough peop1e, all over the world, wake up and come to love their own lives and this earth more than fixed ideas of "right", which "justify" the arrogance of the "righteous".

The concept of a "union of egoists" which would expropriate the expropriators, and secure to its members ownership over their lives and property, was coined by Max Stirner. (Marx attempted to debase the idea by coining a counterfeit, "Saint Max", in his GERMAN IDEOLOGY.) The author of THE EGO AND HIS OWN just might have seen as a prototype of his idea the ana rcho-i nd i vi dua 1 i st labor union described by Maureen Flannery in this issue. It is another example of activism that need not regiment and stifle autonomy. And it demonstrates that individual anarchy is not wedded to a particular economic doctrine ... which brings us to....

SEX AND THE SINGLE-TAX - or, "What's a nice 'tax' like you doing in a State like this?" I had intended to devote more space than I found available in this issue to a second look at "the land question" and Henry George's single-tax on land values, or the "community collection of economic rent". First, let me say that, when it is based on voluntary agreement, I give the idea wholehearted support. But ANY social reform outside the context of mutual agreement raises other questions.

Robert Clancy writes in this issue that he doubts that voluntarism can successfully implement equal freedom in all cases, including equal access to land. Instead, "some implementation on a social level seems ... needed". Granted -- but BY WHOM and UPON WHOM? What is to prevent a government, given the authority to collect rent from all land, from acting like a rack-renting feudal aristocracy? Would this not be a centralization of land ownership? In point of legal fact, this exists today - except that the State allows its vassals (current land owners) to keep most of the rent,

while it robs the productive members of society via direct and indirect taxation. And would changing the source of "public revenue" by itself change the mi sal 1 ocation of such revenue - toward the enhancement of power and privilege?

Clearly, "implementation on a social level oust involve the destruction of this collusion between government and the owners of land destroying, not combining, the power and privileges of both. Such'implementation would have to take forms siailar to the direct democracy advocated by libertarian and anarchist socialists, or to the "union of egoists" advocated by individualist and mutualist anarchists. In such social arrangements as these, each member has a direct input and receives definite agreed-to benefits. No authority or hierarchy lords it over the individual.

As a model of reform of existing structures, the Georgist single-tax on land values does offer much: abolition of taxation on production and exchange would limit the State's power to expropriate the products of labor; and natural resources and valuable urban sites would be made available, providing employment, housing, and general prosperity; land values would finance public services, which increase land values, taking private profit out of publicly-financed necessities such as roads, subways, and sewers; and the redistribution of the remaining land rent, in equal shares to all community members, would certainly compensate those who own or use less than the average (or fair) share of land (measured by its rental or use value).

The question, then, is: How to get the State (the institution of collusion between the grantors and the grantees of privilege - of "private law") to surrender the power to exploit labor and seize wealth? Any attempt to ask the State to be so accomodating will, of course, fail. Attempts to force the State to return sovereignty to "the people", via the political process, meets the State on its own terms; in such a contest the greater force would seem to lie with the powers-that-be. While political agitation may be necessary out of self-defense to enact fiscal reforms, and to stem the tide of rampant domination, one wonders if such means can create a transformed society freed from all domination - even by the majori ty.

The path to such a society, where all have equal access to the earth and the freedom to keep what they produce (individually and collectively), is the path to a stateless community of absolute individual sovereignty over personal affairs, and equal individual sovereignty over collective affairs. While Georgism (which advocates "association in equality") provides important details in the model of a non-dominating society; anarchism provides the strategies that, in the long run, are most likely to create and maintain such a society: strategies based on non-violence and direct action. Future issues of THE STORM! will explore some of these ideas in further detail; and short, concise contributions to this discussion are welcome.

But what, you ask, has all this to do with sex? Well, that was partly to get your attention. But like any particular sexual activity, the single-tax is ONE way among many: appropriate for some, maybe even most, but not for all. There will always be those who prefer to make love in deviant fashions - and given freedom, more would probably do so, not less. As with sex, so too with land occupancy, community services and revenue. These are issues which should be handled on the basis of equal freedom and participation for mutual benefit - not by intervention "from above" by a State or privileged class for ITS own benefit. c Teh-<0 V3 v

Wl

a yccoCCcctuM Maureen Tlamery-

Individual anarchy has often been treated as an interesting idea,but one with little bearing on practical group work. However, during the late sixties in San Francisco, an individualist anarchist labor union (or "non-union" as it was later called) was organized with features unique in aaerican labor history.

Initially, we were a small group of social workers who revolted against an AFL union, local 400, after repeated instances in which the AFL failed to act on issues. These issues included firings; without pretext with five ainutes notice, refusal of the labor council to fund publication of the social services newsletter, DIALOG, and the dismissal of a worker for visiting North Vietnaa during personal leave. This last item precipitated an adainistrative proposal for an "inconpatable activities code," which would have invaded the private lives of city workers to deteraine the suitability of their political or personal beliefs. Launching a aamaoth publicity campaign we defeated the initiative. This was 1966, and almost a decade later this dangerous concept was revived with reference to employee sexual preferences.

By this time we had severed relations with the AFL, establishing an independent Social Services Employees Union (SSEE), complete with small office and printing equipment. Although we comprise various political tendencies, we all had reservations about having paid officials or any kind of dominating leadership. After a period of experimentation with acts of defiance -- immediately followed by firings -- we decided to utilize more subtle methods of dissent that relied upon communication with other workers to generate wide support and avoid martyrdom.

We utilized open and reasoned publicity, direct confrontation with immediate supervisors over specific issues, with self representation. We managed to make any supervisor as answerable for his actions as a "subordinate" via wide dissemination of interviews. Notoriety often left a supervisor vulnerable to power structures above, and it is surprising to see how many lost face in the simpliest interview. Through a series of meetings with department officials, a grievance procedure was implemented and written into the civil service code which allowed any grievant the right to a hearing with three representatives and as aany witnesses as necessarv to support his her case. For any career .inded supervisor it was ■ore risky to set one's name in print too often than to tolerate insubordination. As a result, firings were alaost eliainated, and aany supervisors started to hide in their offices The "right" of the supervisor to pass judgement and document the behavior of those supervised simply becaae the reverse tool of workers.

These ideas were later incorporated into a constitution statins that "SSEU is organized to give workers an opportunity to have soae voice in determining the conditions under which the* work. Contrary to a style of operation in which the individual abdicates action and responsibility to a union official, a lawyer, or a politician, SSEU stresses the individual's participation bv collective action in the decision ■aking processes which govern his life...by helping provide workers with the opportunity to know the policies which govern thea and then confront the public bodies which control and administer these policies. Such an approach necessarily requires openness and the courage to claia responsibility for actions, losses, and victories. It is also the antithesis of clandestine deals, political coaproaises and the corruption which characterizes aanv of the actions of organized labor..-aeabers need not gain any union sanction for such actions, nor do their leaflets reflect the opinions of all other workers. They are expected, however to take public responsibility for what thev publicize and do- SSEU aeabers generally choose to operate within the sphere of iaaediate working conditions and probleas rather than issues of foreign policy, prison refora, ecologv, of other popular hobbies, since aost of our experiences have shown that persons can exert the greates leverage in the situations iaaediately affecting thea."

After soae heated confrontations, we were able to have five representatives at social and civil service conaission hearings, again with all incidents reported in leaflets. Another perogative of authoritv was inverted as workers were given the pseudo rights of adainistrators.

At this point, when the SSEU aethods were achieving their creates success and aeabership was high, a nunber of obstacles were placed in the way of the union's developaent. Local 400 alaraed at the inroads being Bade by a small independent organization, hired an iapressive organizer, Harold Supriano, who had ironically been our catalyst at the tiae of his North Vietnaa excursion. Another invasion caae froa the Progressive Labor Party who dispatched a "vanguard" to work at the welfare departaent and convert SSEU into a conventional union, with aeabership in the AFL, a "contract" demanding exclusive bargaining power, and aandatory SSEU aeabership. Once established, the paid officials of such a group could then lay down a certra1ized "union line" and direct all worker activity.

The "people's army" did sake a nuaber of smart advances, although Harold Supriano, a less serious threat, just faded off into the sunset of North Beach cafes. Progressive Labor, no such slouchers, within a few Months gained control of DIALOG filling the paper with pro-collective bargaining editorials, sought to institute a rigid editorial policy, which would subject all submitted material to some sort of judgement, rejecting all contrary opinions, and refused to appeal decisions to the membership. After a long and bitter battle, their platforms were defeated 2-1, and many either left the department or joined local 400. The incident eroded such of our strength, but reconfirmed SSEU's commitment to the absence of paid leadership, and the requirement that DIALOG editor accept articles from every point of view, and the prohibition of the union's entering into any contract that would inhibit the freedom of the individual member to join freely with anyone to determine the conditions of his working life.

Later amendments to the constitution included voluntary dues, access to printing equipment by all department employees as long as materials were paid for or replaced, all offices to be voluntary, no mandatory insurance benefits, (most SSEU people felt that these items offered by conventional unions were simply recruitment devices, that the employer should be the one to bear any financial costs rather than unions with inflationary dues structures, and that in any case all insurance programs should be entered into by free choice only.

Essentially we were a fraternal collective existing for mutual support on a positive level only, we could not as a group act to forbid any member from doing anything he she wanted. This was a complete departure from conventional unions which derive their "power" from their ability to commandeer or discipline membership. There are precedents in history for such alliances, particularly in pre-hellenic Greece where various artisians and craftsmen comprised independent brotherhoods for defense and support. These were far more complex and progressive than the later medieval guilds which mainly fixed prices and provided welfare.

We forestalled the collective bargaining ordinance for a few years by working with some other minority unions. But it became apparant that the city wanted workers more effectively organized into one union, or at least a few big ones so that meetings could be closed for anyone not authorized by a labor corporation or a city corporation.

During 1970 and again 1974 there were city strikes. The main issue wa of course "collective bargaining," a tedious litany hailed by cigar smoking union officials in blue silk and ambitious "radicals" in blue denim. A few nonsensical demands were thrown in as good smoke screen (none of which were ever granted or even mentioned after the strike) along with a lot of cries of "the brotherhood of labor," local #535 was created.

In one year the entire grievance procedure was overturned, salaries for some groups like electricians and nurses were actually reduced and their memberships turned over a prize captives to the Service Employees International. Small unions and even some large groups like the California Nurses Association were wiped out. Even Local 535, set up as a dummy group to reattrack social workers was eventually devoured by its mentor, Local 400.

Although television and the press portrayed this farce as some giant war between city labor and management, most AFL people were given easy jobs. Announcements for strikes were circulated by several department heads who also told those workers who did not want to strik to stay home. And although 751 of the workers did nt want to strike, the division administrator, a local 400 official, refused them access to facilities. (As you know, during a strike employees are not paid -- and civil service workers risk losing their jobs.)

Naturally, we were among the groups exposing the strikes and showing up for work wherever possible. Although we issued bulletins suggesting on the site strikes over specific issues, in the eyes of young and old mystics who honor holy words instead of reality -- we were seen as scabs. Defending ourselves from this taboo epitaph wasted a good deal of time and paper. A lot of our former activity ceased, even the publication of DIALOG.

The contract-agreement finally reached gave exclusive bargaining rights to large city-wide unions, with Service Employees International. It eliminated public hearings at social or civil service commissions and prevented workers from filing complaints on their own initiative. All grievances had to be screened through one's Majority union and membership or its dues equivalent became mandatory. The AFL could have a city department fire any worker not complying with this provision. During this ugly battle I saw police dogs partrol workers meeting halls. A local 250 agent assaulted a friend of mine, ane I witnessed dissenters being dragged from a meeting by hired security personal. It is a small wonder that even conservative politicians pay homage to our "great labor tradition." Management is superfluous with the efficency of this sort of control.

Without the right to represent ourselves as a minority union, of course we were put out of business. The experiment was not entirely a failure. A completely anarchistic organiziation existed for approximately nine years as an effective union with neither unity or discipline. We actually operated more efficiently without restraints. When dues were ■ade voluntary, people offered more, when all members or department workers were given access to our office, nothing was damaged or stolen. Without harrassing other workers who might agree with all our principles, firings were almost eliminated, salaries increased, and our treasury remained in the black.

Although, 1 personally found the midnight effort:. to improve the quality of an essentially boring Job dubious, the opportunity to see myths of political labels, and rigid organizational trappings dispelled, made my own participation worthwhile. The entire experience was an education In anarchy that could not have been possible through any lecture 01 periodical. There were flaws that would have contributed to the group's eventual demise, even without the AFL. Meetings were endless; sometimes four nights a week until midnight or later. The democratic framework necessitated some of this, but simple obsession with triviality accounted for a good deal-Oddly enough too little attention was paid to the collective bargaining threat. Morale was low after 1970. To many, selling your body in work bondage to the government as a social worker or teacher was just the only alternative to low payed clerical work in private industry. Many of the best activists went on to graduate school, social workers positions afterwards became scarce. Our directness and honesty often left us vulnerable to organizations like local S3S, who used underground work and alternatives to 9-5 slavery. It should have been of more importance to anarchists. And time ^pent at meetings could have been put to more egoistic and practical ends.

However, this is all hindsight. The level of comraderie, and the complete freedom of action and speech have utterly spoiled roe. I have not seen the atmoshpere of SSFU duplicated in any other organizations -- including anarchist ones. And we won several successful grievances. One of these eliminated the dress codes, which seems irrelevant to those who think only along macro-political lines -- but was important in terms of having sovereignty over one's own body and expression. Another was a grievance issued by one worker whose superior wanted him to "be friendly with all the workers in the unit" and arranged little coffee meetings to instill this sort of "unit spirit." The worker thought it absurd and demeaning, and thai who he chose to be friendly with was a personal matter unrelated to his actual job. (Hearing how people today dress "to impress the boss" and read tasteless manuals on effective comraunication on the job, I sometimes wonder if we are entering a period of mental atrophy.) And the last successful grievance concerned eligibility supervisor who became subject to blackmail due to his homosexuality.

Our "non-union" union believed that what happened to an individual during his or her everyday life was of more political significance than classes, creeds, political organizations, or economic systems. In any given situation there was only the exploited and the exploiter. For us, Anarchy was neither a theory for mental masturbation nor a religion providing eternal salvatation on some future judgement day. Rather, it was a tool we used to maximize our abilities to withstand those who sought to prevent us from being ourselves. --—--

paRKeR.

aonaRRedBeaRjana

f\imm*»se

(For supplying information and speculatons I would like to thank Chris Cuneen of the Australian Dictionary of Biography, Bob James, historian of Australian Anarchism, and Edward C. Weber, head of the Labadie Collection, University of Michigan. Thanks are also due to former Chicago soapboxers Slim Brundage and the late Dave Tullman for their memories, S.E.P.)

"It is surely one of published anywhere."

the most incendiary works ever to be James J. Martin

"A vitriolic, racist hymn to the doctrine of force."

Chris Cuneen

A MAN

MIGHT IS RIGHT is a book whose survival has had nothing to do with popular acclaim or academic attention. It has, nonetheless, been read and discussed by a continuing circle of outsiders, unconventional radicals and other miscellaneous individuals for some 85 years, necessitating several editions. Originally published in 1896, it was reprinted as late as 1972. Erratic, insipiring, Infuriating, a mixture of individualistic sense and collectivist nonsense, it outlines a case for "social darwinisB" that is one of the frankest and most powerful I have seen."

There is no certainty as to who the author, Ragnar Redbeard, was. The most likely candidate is a man named Arthur Desmond who was red-bearded, red-haired and whose poetry was very similar to that written by Redbeard. Born in New Zealand of an Irish father and an English mother, his actual date of birth is unknown, 1 84 2 and 1859 being two of the years given. While in New Zealand, Desmond stood as a radical candidate for parliament, organized trade unions, championed the ideas of Henry George, supported the Maori leader Te Kooti, and edited a radical paper called THE TRIBUNE.

In 1892 Desmond left New Zealand for Sydney, Australia. Here he continued his political activities, edited HARD CASH and THE STANDARD BEARER, wrote poetry which influenced the famous Australian poet, Henry Lawson, joined the Labour Party, and associated with radical personalities like John Dwyer who had known Marx and Bakunin. It is said that he left Australia in 1895, taking with him the unpublished manuscript of MIGHT IS RIGHT.

Any account of Desmond's subsequent career after leaving Australia is largely based on conjecture. He is said to have published REDBEARD'S REVIEW in London, to have lived in Chicago, where he co-authored a book called RIVAL CAESARS with Will H* Dilg (using the pseudonym "Desmond Dilg" for the occasion), and edited the LION'S PAW under the name of Richard Thurland • His date of death is not certain. One version has him dying in Palestine in 1918 "while on service with General Allenby's troops," another version claims he died in 1926, again in Palestine. On the other hand, I have been told that he was running a bookshop in Chicago as late as 1927. And this is to discount not only the more bizarre stories such as that he was really Ambrose Bierce and was shot during the Mexican Revolution, but also the fact that there seems to be no definite evidence that Redbeard and Desmond were the same indi vidual....

A BOOK

What is certain, however, is that if Desmond was Redbeard, then his views must have undergone a drastic change towards the end of his stay in Australia. MIGHT IS RIGHT is no manifesto of a political radical intent on the "emancipation of the workers." I cannot conceive of any of our contemporary saviours of the proletariat recommending it as required reading, even though it is claimed that it influenced some of the early Wobblies. And it certainly has no appeal for those sentimental totalitarians who profess "care" and "love" for mankind.

Redbeard sets out the theme of his book in a prefatory note entitled ALL ELSE IS ERROR:

"The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance even as it was the inheritance of previous generations. This 'condition of combat' may be disguised with the holy phrases of St. Francis, or the soft, deceitful doctrines of a Kropotkin or a Tolstoy, but it cannot eventually be evaded by any human being... It rules all things...and it DECIDES all who imagine policemanized populations, internationally regulated tranquility, and State organized industrialism so joyful, blessed and divine."

But in this war of each against all there are only a small number of victors. They alone conquer power and enjoy the loot. This is because "The great mass of men who inhabit the world of today have no initiative, no originality or independence of thought, but are mere subjective

m

THE MACKAY SOCIETY

"I am an anarchist! Wherefore I will

Not rule, and also ruled I will not be!

--John Henry Mackay

Born in Scotland in 1864, John Henry Mackay grew up in Germany where he established himself as a unique author of fiction and poetry. He also earned the reputation of one of the finest writers (if not the finest) of individualist anarchist thought in anv language. It was well after his death in 1933, however, that it became known that he was also "Sagitta", author of "the Books of the Nameless Love", now regarded as pathbreaking classics of homosexual literature.

In all his writings, whether poetry, short stories, novels, or his best-known "Books of Freedom", Mackay's perspective - that each flesh-and-blood individual is unique - breaks through. His love of freedom is evident, even when it brings tragedy rather than triumph.

For Mackay, freedom from dogma and ide logy (what Max Stirner called "fixed ideas") was as important as equal freedom in soc ial life.

The purpose of the Mackay Society is to continue the work begun by Mackay in the early 1930s, when he founded the Mackay-Gese11schaft, and carried on by Kurt Zube, who re-established it some 40 years later in Freiburg, Germany.

This work includes the translation, publication, and distribution of the works of John Henry Mackay, as well as writings about him. In addition, the Society publishes and/or distributes other works that, in an undogmatic and anti-ideological spirit, explore and advocate individual sovereignty and equal freedom in all areas of human life.

Membership in the Mackay Society is $7 (US) for two years. Members are entitled to special discounts on all literature distributed by the Society. Members also receive THE STORM I A Journal for Free Spirits, which is published occasionally by the Society. A membership form follows the literature list in this catalogue. You are invited to join.

For more information about the Mackay Society, please write to the Secretary: Mark A. Sullivan

227 Columbus Ave. #2E New York, N.Y. 10023 (USA)

Literature Published by the Mackay Society

THE MANIFESTO OF PEACE AND FREEDOM: The Alternative to the Communist Manifesto. By K.H.Z. Solneman. Translated from the German by Doris Pfaff and John Zube. Edited by Edward Mornin.

236 pages, $11.95 US.

This work begins with a clarification of much used - and miSTUsed - concepts such as: FREEDOM, FORCE, and ANARCHY. It launches a critical attack upon prevalent stereotyped ideas about the nature of the modern State, whether Marxist or democratic. As an alternative, it presents concrete suggestions for the realization of equal freedom for all:

1) Equal access to natural resources and distribution of the land^rent to everyone (especially in the cities) ;

2) Freedom of the means of exchange (of money and credit);

3) Open associations of management (and absurdity of unemployment);

4) Autonomous legal and social communities (genuine pluralism and freedom of choice).

Above all, THE MANIFESTO offers an alternative way of thinking, which as Albert Einstein has said, is necessary if we are to avoid catastrophe. Laying the basis for new social relationships upon general agreement instead of ideology, it presents the reader with an inevitable choice: either the law of the sword and aggressive force * or non-domination and equal f reedom J

This book won the First Alternative Peace Prize at the Alternative Book Fair in Franfurt/M., West-Germany in 1977.

THE FREEDOMSEEKER: The Psychology of a Development. By John Henry Mackay. Translated from the German by Charles and Nora Alexander, edited by Edward Mornin. 229 pages $7.95. Available February 1983.

This book and Mackay's earlier work, THE ANARCHISTS, comprise his two "Books of Freedom". THE FREEDOMSEEKER traces the psychological development of one individual, Ernst Foerster, in his quest for freedom. Drawing on his own experience, Mackay portrays Foerster's life as a search for meaning in a world suffering under the brutal and oppressive force wielded by those in authority, and embodied in the State. It is the story of an individual's struggle against - and triumph over domination, hypocrisy and despair. And in the course of the narrative, the author's philosophy of individual sovereignty and equal freedom is drawn in fine details and in broad flowing strokes. This is the first English language edition of Mackay's bold and beautiful classic which he originally published in Germany in 1920.

THE ANARCHISTS: A Picture of Civilization at the Close of the Nineteenth Century. By John Henry Mackay. 294 pages, $9.9S US. Available 1983 or 1984.

The first of Mackay's two "Books of Freedom", THE ANARCHISTS, is a moving account of life on the streets of London in 1 887. 41 though presented in fictionalized form, the book details the author's experience of the poverty, hunger and discontent among the native and immigrant working and unemployed masses within "the Heart of the World-Metropolis". The various movements for social change are described in great detail, with the similarities and differences between communist and individualist anarchism lightened in dramatic fashion. And the strained friendship between two anarchists, Carrard Auban the individualist and Otto Trupp the communist, makes this account even more relevant to today's world of competing political viewpoints.

This work, already in 11 non-German editions, has been an anarchist classic since its first publication (in English by Benj. R. Tucker) in 1891.

THE PATHBREAKER JOHN HENRY MACKAY: His Life and Work. By K.H.Z. Solneman. Translated from the German by Professor Hubert Kennedy. 270 pages, $9.95 US. Available late 1983. John Henry Mackay (1864 - 1933) has been called "Germany's poet-anarchist", but he was much more than this. He also gained literary recognition as a novelist and short story writer, and in his two "Books of Freedom", THE ANARCHISTS and THE FREEDOMSEEKER he gave a thorough and readable, exposition of the principles of individualist anarchism - "in a master form, one that Tucker, Schumm, Robinson, Yarros, Walker or Byington could never have achieved, in a flow of language that their English was never capable of" wrote Professor Thomas A. Riley - but he is, too, the splendid author of the "Books of the Nameless Love". This book tells not only the story of his extraordinary life and career, but also gives an evaluation of his literary and intellectual accomplishments. Based on extensive research, as well as the personal acquaintance of the author with Mackav, it is the most complete biography of him.

TWO ESSAYS ON EGOISM: PROTAGORAS - NIETZSCHE - STIRNER, Exposition of Egoism by Benedict Lachmann. MAX STIRNER's PHILOSOPHY OF THE EGO. Selection and commentary by Dr. Herbert Stourzh. Translated from the German by Dr. Edward Mornin.. 148 pages, $7.95 US. Available late 1983.

MAX STIRNER: HIS LIFE AND HIS WORK. By John Henry Mackay. Translated from the German by Charles and Nora Alexander, 4 illustrations, numerous facsimiles and an appendix. 300 pages, $12.95 US. To be published in 1984.

The pathbreaking work that rescued Stirner from oblivicn. Thoroughly researched, it is still the only biography of Stirner available J now for the first time in English.

JOHN HENRY MACKAY - ANARCHIST OF LOVE. By Hubert Kennedy. Fascinating account of Mackay's fight for the freedom of homosexual men and boys under the nom de plume of Sagitta, author of the "Books of the Nameless Love". 24 pages, $1.50 US. To be published early 1984.

THE STORM! A JOURNAL FOR FREE SPIRITS. Includes lively discussion and exposition of the many faces of individual sovereignty and equal freedom: psychological, sexual, economic, historic, cultural, etc. It is unique among periodicals of any and every tendency. Published occasionally by the Mackay Society. Single copy $1.00 US. ($1.50 US overseas) Subscription: $4.00 US for 5 issues ($6.00 US overseas). List of available back issues sent on request. U.S. readers send a 20^ self-addressed envelope.

(Prices and dates, while fairly certain, are subject to change.)

Also Available from the Mackay Society

BENJAMIN R. TUCKER AND THE CHAMPIONS OF LIBERTY. New anthology by 16 current authors, evaluating Tucker and his individualist anarchist movement, in honor of the centenary of his journal LIBERTY. Published by Michael E. Coughlin and Mark A. Sullivan; Introduction: Charles H. Hamilton. Price not set. Available: Summer 1983.

THE EGO AND HIS OWN. By Max Stirner. Translated from the German by Stephen T. Byington. "The Case of the Individual Against Authority". called by James Huneker: "the most revolutionary book ever written." First published in 1844, written by the most radical of " the young Hegelians", it surpasses Nietzsche in its critique of ideology, authority, morality, and the state. 366 pages. Libertarian Book Club Edition, with an introduction by James J. Martin. $6.95 U.S.

Rebel Press edition, (entitled The Ego and Its Own) with an introduction by S.E. Parker. $9.00 U.S.

ALTERNATIVE AMERICAS. By Mildred J. Loomis. Foreward by Hazel Henderson. An informal history of decentralist movements in American history, including individualist anarchism, Georgist land reform, co-operative, homesteading, and holistic living. By the long-fine partner of Ralph Borsodi, founder of The School of Living, and "grandmother of the counter-culture" (Mother Earth Ntws). 175 pages. A Free Life Editions Book published by Universe Books. $7.95 U.S.

FREEDOM THE ONLY END. By F. McEachran. A philosophical treatise on "Society Without the State" "It is one evil for a ■an to murder another man in a fit of anger, but it is another and far greater evil for a state to organise a police force and armies to kill people against whom no anger has been felt." Includes a focus on the relationship of land monopoly and State power. Johnson Pub. Ltd., publisher. Cloth, 126 pages. $5.00 U.S.

THE STATE. By Franz Oppenheiaer. Translated from the German by John Gitterman. Introduction by C. Hamilton. Sociological classic which shows how the State arises through conquest and plunder, and survives through massive exploitation. Free Life Editions. 122 pages. $3.95.

SLAVES TO DUTY. By John Badcock, Jr. Perhaps the best brief presentation of egoistic anarchism delivered in 1894. Beautiful rare edition, hand-set and published by Laurance Labadie in 1938. 39 pages. Deluxe edition: $4.00.

WHAT IS MAN'S DESTINY? By Laurance Labadie. With a biographical introduction by Mark A. Sullivan. Humanity's habitual slavery to governmenta 1ism, with the probabililty of future catastrophe. 16 pages. $1.00 U.S.

The MACKAY SOCIETY, which is undogmatic and anti-ideological , publishes and distributes writings by and about John Henry Mackay, and, in addition, other works that explore and advocate individual sovereignty and equal freedom in all areas of human life.

THE MACKAY SOCIETY - MEMBERSHIP/ORDER FORM

I would like to join the Mackay Society for the next two years. Enclosed is a check or money order for $7.00 (U.S. currency). In exchange I will receive 20* OFF the price of ail literature ordered from the Society, plus THE STORM! A JOURNAL. FOR FREE SPIRITS, at no charge.

Signature___Date_

(Print name and address below)

Please send me the literature listed below. Enclosed is a check or money order for $_ (U.S. currency).

individualities, who never had the slightest voice in fashioning the ideas that they formally revere." The "average man...is a born thrall habituated from childhood to be governed by others." The majority of the common people can never become free, they "are but the sediment from which all the more valuable elements have long been disti1 led...Mastership is right, mastership is natural, mastership is eternal. But only for those who cannot overthrow it, and trample it beneath their hoofs."

On the other hand, the strong man is the free man and "freemen should never regulate their conduct by the suggestion or dicta of others, for when they do they are no longer free." The free man is "above all laws, all constitutions, all theories of right and wrong. He supports and defends them, of course, as long as they suit his own end, but if they don't then he annihilates them by the easiest and most direct method." "Liberty is honestly definable as a state of completely bodily and mental self-mastership ... and thoroughgoing independence from all official coercion or restraint." It is synonymous with proprietorship. To be property-less and unarmed is the condition of actual dependence and servitude. Unarmed citizens are enslaved citizens, always. Liberty without property is a myth, a nursery tale, believable only by babbling babies.

Redbeard rejects equality as another myth. Let us take the notion of "equality before the law." "By what rational method can any two litigants be placed in a position of unconditioned 'equality before the law?' First of all, plaintiff and defendant always possess totally different physical and mental characteristics, different personal magnetisms -- and different sized bank balances. Also all judges, juries, and legal officials are unequal in temperment, ability, courage and honesty. Each one has his own peculiar idiosyncrasies, prejudices, inferiorities, superstitions and -- price. ...No two men are born alike: each one being literally born under his own particular star...1Equa1ity before the law' is just a meaningless catchphrase."

Equality is a lie because "every atom of organic matter has its own vital peculiarity. Every animate being is different in osseous structure and chemical composition. Ethnology, biology, history, all proclaim equality to be a myth. Even the great epics of antiquity are all glorifications of inequality: inequality of the mind, inequality of birth, of courage or condition...Mentally and morally, every breathing being is a self-poised monad -- a differentiated ego. No two germs, planets, suns, or stars are alike. Among the higher vertebrates this is especially so, and consequently the only law that men ought to honour or respect is the law that originates and finds its final sanction IN THEMSELVES -- in their own consciousness."

o-Hheard then, life is struggle, life is war For Ragnar Redbeard' \D 'the strongest, and have set aside and in this war those who are ^^ ^ suitable only for the

the authority of laws anu^ ^ winners. They will remain submissive mass, extent that they can continue to

winners, however, only to> ™ if others arise who are

prove thenKselvteAvt then they will lose and new masters will stronger than they, tnen r ^ „survival of the fittest„

take their place. in be hampered or denied b

docirineV'o/ brotherhood or equality which have no roots in reality.

n Hn#»c not deny the existence of oppression and

Redbeard d°es n0th^uture world of the strong. What he

exploitation now or in his the _seekers that

does deny are the hypocrit altruistic love for those

they are dolXa?nate Legalism and moralism are the masks of they want ^^^^^Vnce by the strong will lead to weakness5and Regeneration* Redbea/d's position is not all that f ro. the Marquis de Sade, when he wrote: "Ind viduals who [re not animated by strong passions are merely mediocre It is only strong passions which can produce great „ei when one is no longer .. passionate, one becomes stupid. This point established, are not laws dangerous which inhibit the passions?"

A CRITIQUE

Although Redbeard claims to scorn moral codes, stating that "all arbitrary codes of right and wrong are insolent invasions of personal liberty" and that greatness lies "in being beyond and above all moral measurements," he is, nonetheless, a moralist. He makes plain his antagonism to Judeo-Chnstian morality, but his whole approach is shot through with the perennial moralistic desire to redeem the human race from "evil " For him, what is "natural" is "right" and the further human beings get away from "Nature," the further they depart from "right." Leaving aside the fact that "Nature" is a mental construct, not a fact, and that "Man" is nothing but an aggregate of individuals, the question remains as to how Redbeard would square his belief that "every breathing being is "a differentiated ego" with his demand that all these differentiated egos accept the common goal of being "natural" -as he defines it. If I am unique, then what it is in my "nature" to be will not be the same as what it is in the "nature" of other individuals to be. Indeed, what is "natural" for me may well be "unnatural" for others, and a collision unavoidable. Redbeard's interpretation of "social darwinism" clearly allows for this, but his morality of "Nature" equally clearly negates it.

In fact, this contradiction is starkly illustrated by Redbeard himself when he comes to treat sexual relations between men and women. On the same page he proclaims that "moral principles•..a re artificial human enactments, but not necessarily natural, honest, just or true- Moral codes are the black, terror of all dastards," and then goes on to state that "readers must distinctly understand that SEXUAL MORALITY is nowise condemned in these pages." This is because "women are frail beings at the best of times...they must be held in thorough subjections" for "woe unto the Race if ever these lovable creatures should break loose from mastership, and become the rulers or equals of Man." He follows this warning with a denunciation of "sexual degeneracy," "promiscuity," "infidelity," "that harlot factory, the divorce court," and other "evils," in a language redolent of the very Christian morality he so fiercely attacks elsewhere. "If our modern Sodoms"," he writes, were all raied to the ground, how Nature in all her perennial purity would rejoice exultantly!" Substitute "God" for "Nature" and what religious moralist would object?

Redbeard1s view of the "nature" of women is in no way consistent. In one paragraph of his chapter on LOVE, MOMEN AND WAR he repeats his opinion of woaen as being "incapable of self-mastership...acre babies in wordly concerns," but in the next paragraph writes that "when their passsions are stirred woaen have performed deeds of heroisa (and terror) that even a aan with nerves of steel would hesitate at...They have led araies and been criminals of the darkest dye." In claiaing that woaen are destined to be "subjects" and at the saae tiae are capable of being "rulers," Redbeard effectively destroys his own case for aale superiority and, what is aore, seeas oblivious of the fact that he is doing it!

Redbeard is also a racist believing that Anglo-Saxons are the superior race. Blacks, Jews, Asiatics and "degenerate whites" are all excluded froa his class of superaen. His racisa, however, underaines the logic of his "philosophy of power." In a typical description of his philosophy he writes of the capitalist that he "can 'do as he likes with his own,' AS LONG AS HE HAS THE POWER . He Bay own the earth... if he wants to, and he aay buy or sell aen and nations if he feels inclined or thinks it profitable. There is in Nature no liait to his energies or ambitions. All that is needed is power equal to the design. But the saae principles aay be acted upon by any other aan or association of aen, and in the conflict that ENSUES FITNESS IS PROVED -- ABSOLUTELY AND WITHOUT DOUBT. The 'rights of the rich' are what they CAN aaintain and the 'rights of the poor' are not less. No bounds are set to the accumulation of property, and none whatever to its re-distrib tion."

If, therefore, "all that is needed" for the survival of the fittest is "power equal to the design" and "the saae principles may be acted upon by any other aan or association of aen," this must logically apply to all human beings. It follows that if a

fliark a Jew, an Asiatic or a "degenerate white, proves to be stronger than one of Redbeard's Anglo-Saxon supermen then he has no grounds upon which he can deny the victor his spoils. If I can do as I like with my own as long as I have the power, then it does not matter what race or colour I am for I have shown that I am the powerful one. Redbeard's racism, like his sexism, is therefore completely inconsistent with his own "philosophy of power" since he can only defend it by using collectivist notions that deny his individualist premise that there are no "rights" outside the "might" of the individual.

MIGHT IS RIGHT is a work flawed by major contradictions. Like the Christian bible it can be used as a source for the most incompatible views, but unlike that venerable collection of idiocies and myths it is sustained by a crude vigour that at its most coherent can help to clear away not a few of the religious, moral and political superstitions bequeathed to us by our ancestors. Whoever Ragnar Redbeard was, and whatever criticisms nay be justly leveled at his book, he remains worthy of the attention of all who are conscious that their "rights" are equal to their power.

S.E. Parker edits and publishes the anarchist individualist review EGO (Incorporating MINUS ONE). Send $3 (US) to S.E. Parker, Garden Flat, 91 Talbot Rd. London U 2 England. He also wrote the introduction to The Rebel Press edition of Stirner's THE EGO AND ITS OWN, available from The Mackay Society (see enclosed catalog). Also available is 1 927 Dill Pickle Press edition of MIGHT IS RIGHT (but in short supply); send $30 (US) check or money order to "The Mackay Society".

Both in and out of the libertarian movement there is ouch vague talk these days about human rights. When they are defined or numbered at all, seldom is any basis given besides humanistic tenderness for respecting them. More often than not, various authorities cannot even agree as to what they i nclude.

At lofty international conferences the United States charges that the Soviet Union ignores the civil liberties of its citizens, and the Russians reply indignantly that the U.S. neglects the material rights of its own people.

In libertarian journals there appear long, scholarly articles quoting what this or that authority, on Natural Law or political legislation, has had to say about the subject of rights. But what Natural Law is, and how it is connected to individual rights, is seldom explained clearly.

Mark Sullivan, like Max Stirner, finds the very concept of rights repugnant, fearing that any social institution erected for their protection will wind up, as many have, overseeing their extinction.

Invoking Natural Law, Robert LeFevre speaks of rights as if they were mystical attributes -- inalienable, transcendant and adhering to each individual theoretically no matter how enslaved he or she is in actual fact.

Benjamin Tucker finally made the doctrine of natural rights derived from Natural Law clear to me when I encountered his statement that rights were just needs, spelled another way. Of course among libertarians, most of whom came into the movement by way of Ayn Rand, NEED is certainly the worst four-letter word anyone can utter.

But in light of Tucker's passage it is not only possible to see what Robert LeFevre and the Founding Fathers were talking about when they said that rights are UNalienable -- that is the actual word that appears in the Declaration of Independence --but it also changes the concept of rights from a humanitarian sentiment to a scientific formula, very useful in anticipating human behavior. Moreover, it shows us why governments designed for the protection of rights inevitably degenerate into the usurpation of rights instead.

(£>

ri*hthS ^utf U^i?,"/" Till

un] usVi n e* p^rf su'P' ion that if I need seething , a. 'th^

lifiid to demand that you give it to me. So let's add a ^inJuation: nghts ire -hat hu.ans need IN ORDER TO FUNCTIoS

qu

RATIONALLY

is necessity clarified in generalities. As Ayn

guiding social construction.

These rights were originally identified by English social Philosophers as life, liberty and property. Property is again one of those words that Beans different things to different people. Proudhon indicated as such when he argued that property was theft, that property was liberty and then that property was impossible.

property can be the earned products of one's labor or it can be a boon of unearned loot bestowed upon someone by the government or it can be an accumulation of unearned wealth made possible by privilege, or private law, and -- to make matters worse -- we are generally led to believe that the relevant distinction, if any, is between PUBLIC PROPERTY, a contradiction in terms in one sense, and PRIVATE PROPERTY without regard for how much government force was involved, directly or indirectly, in its accumulation.

m ha t most libertarians are talking about are the EARNED MATERIAL NECESSITIES by means of which both life and liberty are made viable. Unfortunately those among us who are willing to bend this definition enough to include vast corporate empires acquired by hook and crook, including monopolistic legislation and government contracts, receive enough contributions to reach a much larger audience. For that reason most libertarians have been introduced to the property concept in such a sloppy way that they cannot begin to imagine what Proudhon might've been thinking when he said, "Property is theft!"

Our projects to build rightful societies become Towers of Babel when we speak of property as a right, not because retention of the product of our labor isn't intrinsic to maintaining life and liberty -- but because property is a much-corrupted term.

Mind you, I aa not saying just now who should provide these conditions and things -- only that aaaaals deprived of thro froa laboratory rats to huaan beings , do not function rationally. Obviously a "right" gained at the expense of tho rights of another isn't a right, but a privilege.

But with this definition it is possible to suraise that, either by intention or expedience, the aultinatlonal power elite has hopelessly divided the world into two warring ideolog ica 1 cups both half right and half wrong about what constitutes huaan rights. In the West we say that only life liberty and the pursuit of happiness (personal psychoi0R■cai space or the freedoa to sake our own intiaate personal choices) and sometiaes property (of any type recognized by anv law passed by any lobby for any reason) are rights. In the Eust they say that only adequate food, clothing, shelter and nedual care are rights and that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and property (no aatter how honestly it was acquired) are only pri vileges.

Both sides are being very unrealistic about aaanalian huaan behavior. Both sides expect rational behavior fron people who frequently do not possess everything they require in order to behave rationally and socially.

Rights are the aaintenance requireaents of the aachine known as the huaan aniaal. For that reason alone they are a valuable concept. Try to eaploy sweet reason with soaeone who is intolerably coerced or starving and you will be answered with unreasoning conteapt and hatred that, as often as not, fails to accurately identify the true sources of its oppression. That is because the operating instructions to insure the rational functioning of the huaan being are being ignored. What to do about it depends on the situation, and the answers of libertarians of all econoaic views are obviously qualitatively different than those of the statists in either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R.

But the first step is: when all else fails, and in this case it always has, then read the directions: the philosophy of Natural Law and natural rights. Far f roa useless or dangerous intellectual baggage, it is the indispens1ble tool for understanding human action.

The Publication.-A 'sporadical', we aim for three issues per year; have no subscription price, but welcome (and request)

^°The'Legend.. was a western outlaw of 100 years ago who turned 'to robbing stages in his mid-40's (with unloaded shotgun) because he'd "..labored long and hard for bread, for honor and for riches, but on my corns too long you've tred, you fine-haired sons of bitches." ,

..The 'Press'.-is a mimeo-publlsher , exploring concepts of simplicity, non-growth, and modesty in the graphic arts. The process (of reaching out, of evolvement) means more than the product. Done by Irv Thomas at Box 48, Canyon, CA 9451 6. jT^ry

THE HENRY GEORGE INSTITUTE offers a home-study course in economics that gives valuable insights into today's vital problems - inflation, taxes, unemployment, housing, recession. This 10-lesson course is based on the classic "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George. Non-technica 1 , it is designed for the concerned citizen. Tuition is free and there is a modest charge for materials. For further information contact: Henry George Institute, 5 E. 44th St., N.Y., N.Y. 10017.

"Whatia aMaterialist in my opinion? One who believes in that which does exist. In other words, all that is, is material. Also the materialist accepts their own ignorance. ... We are not burdened with the prejudice of ignorance, rather we are free to explore and discover ...

"The atheist denies the existence of a God/Goddess/Creator, l view this belief the same as i do all other absolute statements, as far as that goes, i view atheism as a religion. They all talk of absolutes when none exist as fact in human knowledge....

"i worship knowledge, life and Mother Earth. i worship that which exists."

Mark Sullivan's interesting essay on "Ideology and Anarchy" in the last issue of THE STORM! contains points well worth pondering -- the need for continuing criticism of organized society; the idea that each of us should live out his own personal liberty, not impose it on others; the tendency of reform movements to go off course, to become conformist and "respectable."

Mark, however, reaches the extreme conclusion that "all 'rights' are false notions" and that '"equal rights' is a camouflauge for unequal might." "It is certainly the case that governments, in the name of "equal rights," do soae strange things. For example, in its supposed zeal to see that minority groups get their "rights," the Federal government is intruding into the most detailed aspects of employment and education-Even Russia spreads its pall of oppression and repression in the name of "equal rights!"

But is Mark throwing out the baby with the bath water? We need not get rid of the concept because of the abuses. Mark advocates "equal liberty" -- and does that not mean equal rights? We should "expand our self-determination here and now," as he puts it. But is it not true that our expansion must pause when it meets another person's expansion? As the saying goes, my freedom stops where the other fellow's nose beg ins.

"The anarchist would abolish all statute law and trust voluntary agreements to maintain equal freedom." This too is an ideal principle which we could easily and mistakenly repudiate by calling to mind all the abuses -- many cheatings and ripoffs that take place when trusting individuals make "agreements" with unscrupulous charlatans, etc. But in doing so, we would miss an ideal worth striving for.

When we say "equal rights," we have to specify what is meant. The best definition I know of is that of Herbert Spencer: Each person has a right to do as he pleases provided he does not infringe the equal right of all others to do so. In applying this principle, freedom of the person must be assured, freedom of action, freedom of association. Also, access to the gifts of nature on equal terms and the right to keep the fruits of one's labor.

Can all this be accomplished on a voluntary basis? I would wish so! But some implementation on a social level seems to me to be needed. A society of individuals that could function freely with mutual respect and harmony is an ideal that is beyond our present stage of maturity and wisdom. I doubt that we can afford to do away with ALL statutes -- though most need reform i ng.

I would agree, however, that the anarchist should always be on hand to needle, criticize and protest so that we don't get more statutes than minimally necessary! ROBERT CLANCY

Mark A. Sullivan "What the he

bloody fool Bust be rambl ing". . . in ---- .. . ....... on

"riahts" and you are wrong in your analysis (have I spelt it riiSt"?) The argument against RIGHTS is this that RIGHTS are granted by an authority over you and if they can be granted then it aust follow that that same authority can take them awav..if you claim that you have a RIGHT to free speech then ask 'who grants you that RIGHT' if you have a RIGHT to one hour ■eal break in your place of employment who grants you that o r cut ... man has only one inalienable RIGHT and that is the

every one has that one inalienable Kiuni to struggle to survive ..it is the living creatures, nay any form of living thine that has one single and solitary RIGHT that gives itself and in the end only that living thing can grant itself the RIGHT to end living and we are forced back to Catch 22 the mind to end it and the body struggling to survive are separate beings heigh ho. Arthur Moyse

LONDON

Dear STORM!:

I don't know why I was so glad to see the last issue (#9-10) of your esteemed journal, since as usual it was full of observations and opinions that I find mistaken, wrongheaded, irritating, and misleading. In my view the most wrongheaded opinion in the whole issue appeared in a piece by Mark A. Sullivan himself, when he denounced the influence of Marxism on anarchists. Mark Sullivan seems to think that anarchism is compatible with any of a number of different economic systems but I can't see how this can be true. An economic system based on the exploitation of the poor by the rich, or of workers by employers, cannot serve as the basis for a free society. Exploitation is incompatible with a free society. Therefore anarchism must be based, economically, on some form of socialist arrangement -- a self-governing sort of socialism, needless to say.

Enraged as I was at seeing my opinions contravened, let me say that I thought the last issue particularly interesting, wel 1-written, varied, informative -- far better, in fact, than a good number of expensive journals put out by highsalaried staffs with huge financial endowments. The excellent quality of the issue was in itself the strongest possible argument in favor of undertakings by small groups of associated individuals.

The essence of materialism lies in the simple and single proposition that an explanation of any given phenomenon, and therefore by implication, of all phenomena, is to be sought and found in the conditions of its appearance.

(Chapman Cohen - MATERIALISM RESTATED)

The material has affirmed that there is no "spirit" - no opposite of aatter. Matter then becomes synonymous simply with existence. The materialist...is content with the conclusion that there is no alleged existence unrelated to other and known existence...The spiritual theory asserts a break in what is popularly called "the reign of natural law." Materialism denies such an assertion and exists as a distinctive ISM to deny and dispove it.

(James L. Walker - THE PHILOSOPHY OF EGOISM)

How is this incompatible with "individual anarchy"? The exerpt from Mackay struck me as making too many concessions to altruism in the sentence: "The true egoist prospered because he had recognized that his happiness lay in that of others and because he did not try to build it upon the unhappiness of others." This reads suspiciously like Christian or humanist bunkum. MY happiness lies not in that of others, but in MY satisfaction. That nay coincide with the satisfaction of others, but equally it may not. To make the CONDITION for my happiness the happiness of others is to turn me into their servant and to deny my self-ownership. There is nothing in Stirner * to support Mackay's remarks as he should have known. But I have noticed before -- in THE ANARCHISTS --Mackay's desire to "sweeten" egoism into an indiscriminate social principle. Best wishes, S.E. PARKER

*"...because _I cannot bear the troubled crease on the beloved forehead, for that reason, and for ay sake, I kiss it away. IF I DID NOT LOVE THIS PERSON, HE MIGHT GO RIGHT ON MAKING

CREASES."

P.S. -- I found your interview with Johannsen inconclusive. I am surprised you let him have the last word!

S.E. Parker raises some issues which I would like to clarify (and, in the process, clarify issues raised by some of the other correspondents). Parker takes issue with my statement that: "In its recognition of the ultimate value of the subject, the self, individual anarchy transcends materialism". I agree with the first "authority" he quotes, James L. Walker, who says that there can be no break in "the reign of natural law" (so in that sense I am a materialist). But I am not what the second "authority", Chapman Cohen, means when he declares that "the simple, single explanation of any given phenomenon ... is to be found in the conditions of its appearance". We know, given the latest developments in physics, that there is more to existence - to material - than what APPEARS to be. Behind appearance, behind form, is energy. Behind "solid" matter is "empty" space.

t„ the point: what do I mean by "transcending"

But -ore to the P ihe lndividual sel(> orn«

■ateriallsa. Simply ™* terlal. This element cf conscIousnei* CONSCIOUS j,eyJnd appearance. It is that which percSi;:,"

transcends, ®°® /one raiy even say creates - appearance. Wlthoul orders »nlerpr,hlre can be no appearance. (To 'appear" Beans to be consciousness, there cs o5serVf?r.) But I do not wish to l.ply thJ?

which the land is onof cour5e i gave Johannsen the last Since It was an n . point is another question,

word. Whether or not 0 c.ny that what he calls for Is not

1 lh'nk ,C frh, subjection of the non-Invasive Individual to an government line suoj opposite: mutual agreements (and

external Mill J 1 : the equal freedom of all. If these

assocut ons that promo wjlhout discrimination they would

jgreenents treat »>l all Including later arrivals Into the

receive the consent „ ^ ,Jominate or exploit others).

SET n, s P not Ukely without give-and-take the alternative is ia poVi t ion by those with power: government as it really Is, or

"'i|lt sufl'Vold with "Ideology and Anarchy" that "rights" are nurelv MENTAL CONSTRUCTS, even though some of then attain social "lea itlaacy" when a determining number of persons base their relationships or, these constructs. "Rights" in society are arrived at by struggle, bargaining, and agreement - but often force Is used to iapose subai ssion rather than agreement. In either case a "right" begins within an Individual mind, or ego. As Arthur Moyse writes the EGO ENDOWS ITSELF with the "right" to struggle (or

"^r^rSo0 5"rriVhVtV", NATURAL LAWS ARE ALSO MENTAL CONSTRUCTS: they describe regular recurring sequences that appear In nature. Natural law Is the recognition (and formulation) of CONSEQUENCES (which Tucker called "the only god"). As 'iuch, natural laws are not rules of "ought" (which can be broken), but of necessity. For example, the law of gravity "says" I will fall to death if I jump out of a window 30 floors above ground. But It is

subjective CHOICE that tell* inc I "ought" not to do It. If I no TZwt VALUED my life, I might choose differently and WELC0M1 the

consequence s•

Kerry Thornley's argument that we ran arrive at universal "natural rights" by examining our common needs I s another way of indicating on what basis truly consensual agreements arc reached among persons regarding their common "rights". Thus natural law -th> recognition of consequences and necessity - ran INFORM those seeking mutual rights. This is similar to what THE STORMS has always advocated using Abba Gordin's label "inter-individua1iam" a context in which everyone can participate equally in the organization of common affairs. Whether or not this would lead to self-governing socialism as advocated by Paul Herman is for actual practice to show. I think this would certainly be the <ase where necessarily social concerns are involved (such as land use, public services, and ecological Issues). Self-government, as I see it, ■ust also affirm personal freedom to secede from society arid form other associations, or if need be, to go It alone.

This freedom to choose one's own path to one's own goal, is -here and now - both the path and the goal of Individual anarch/.

-Man.ic_

POSTSCRIPT

I do not, however, think that freedom OUTSIDE so< lety i s the solution, but that freedom WITHIN society is the problem. And despite the need for social organization to promote mutual freedom, government as we have known It (Invasive, riot consensual) was arid is the major block to arriving at mutual freedom, declarations of "human rights" not withstanding. If it Is a "function of government" to maintain equal freedom or human rights, then it has failed miserably. And the consequences of this failure are all around us I n all forms of domination which governments do IN FACT promote: economic, psychological, sexual, generational, racial, and ecological. Rampant destruction threatens the balance of nature, and humanity is poised on the brink of "omnicide". The endless struggle for territory and natural resources (the theme of history which began with the first enclosure of land) seems to be moving inexorably, by its own internal "logic", towards THE "final solution."

Both within and among nation-states "might is right" is t he-name of the game. But the game is almost up - for all of us unless we change the rules and play a new kind of game in which the goals are not authority, exploitation and dominance rather the joy of relating to others as equals in freedom and dignity, and to nature as the common ground of our lives and being. This Is not a Utopian goal but a necessary PROCESS il we are to avoid catastrophe. Whatever you call this process (non-violent revolution, personal transformation, etc.) tin-choices are clear: freedom or domination - ANARCHY OH OBLIVION.

dzdioajoc tiu6 UkJU£ of Tffo Siovnxl u? (gjiC M^^y (mi-si)-with

- JK. C>A\AS-

"IJ" it for during Thal't what il tahet to be free ( 'art Harp "To die ilurhitf belong* the future" limmu Goldman. 1910

"The modern State, by its essence and by the goals which it fixes, is nccet military State mad a mllitaiy State is bound no less obligatorily to become State; if it does not devote itself to conquest, it will itself be conquered, ft reason that everywhere force exists it must be demonstrated. Hence, the o mast necessarily be big and strong; thMt is the necessary condition of its a Mikhail' Bakunin, 1873.

The portentous words of Bakunin have been too well home out a century after he wrote them. "Who exists it must be demonstrated." It has been almost four decades since WWII ended and that demonsti force continues unabated. All over the wotld, from Central America to the southern Atlantic to the Mi we bear witness to mass murder, bombings, arson and terror committed by the state and rationalized i name of the state through eloquent appeals to some grand and noble Higher Authority, known often bj names as God, or Marx, or Dogma, or King, or Country We see the superpowers stockpile weapons, aj again, to the point of bringing us perilously closer to annihilating ourselves dozens of times over As 11 and as persons federated with others having a common purpose, wc have petitioned the governments c countless times, only to see instead an even greater and more massive buildup of the most deadly arm tv has ever known The United Nations sat in Special Session just five years ago, and the leaders of th< governments talked among themselves about disarmament, and still nothing has been done There is 4 and immediate threat to the planet. We must therefore absolutely and constantly put pressure on the » governments to end militarization and stop the arms buildup But that is merely a short-term goal Ret that the state will not disarm we propose to disarm the state, neutralize it, and effectively and immed abolish it. How this will be done is a question that only individual and collective conscience and praci answer. We know that the state's first and most basic function is to protect itself. This is the characte state; it is a law as fix and immutable as any of the laws of science pertaining to nature. Institutions c reformed or altered, the bureaucracy can be reorganized, the cabinet can be reshuffled, and governmen state coup d'etats against other governments, but the form and structure of daily life remains the samt tinuously alienating presence. Recognizing that as long as external government still exists, we will al> least partially enslaved, sometimes in subtler ways, such as we know in the industrialized countries t overt ways, such as the people of El Salvador or Lebanon or Vietnam have known We must work now the madness, if for no other reason that to save lives, and we must work always, if for no other reason change life. But to change life we must begin to define for ourselves the conditions of life. For too lonj allowed the corporations, and the churches, and the central committees to define our very existence B federating among ourselves, ignoring government where practical and fighting it where necessary; by t from our own personal lives as many vestiges of authoritian thinking and acting as possible; by collect restructuring relationships among ourselves; and by fusing the goal with the process in order to create ethic and reality, we seek to combat the state and to abolish the state Wc seek liberty, mstice, equalit also seek freedom and happiness and pleasure We seek to savor the present, and we seek to create the

"Power operates only destructively, bent always on forcing every manifestation of life int< of its laws. Its intellectual form of expression Is dead dogma. Its physical form brute forct unintelligenee of Its objectives sets Its stamp on Its supporters also and renders them smj eren when they were originally endowed with the best of talents. One who is constantly st everything Into a mechanical order «( last becomes a machine himself and loses all human Rudolf Rockcr, 1938